Yep, their contributions continue to anti-LGBT organizations. I won't be ordering from them

Interesting way around the restaurant. I wonder how they do the food for all those restaurants there. They walked back some of their comments. I like their humanism toward their employees. More great insight into the restaurant scene....thanks...

But yeah....it's tough that their Christian beliefs don't extend to the lgbtq community. Always seems like a strange take on compassion for others.... the spicy filet with double lettuce is the best thing. And their diet lemonade is money. May save me the loop down to Sunnyvale....

I ?????? ChickFilA sandwiches and ordered them a lot through DoorDash so far. Waiting for their restaurant to open..., yay ????????????????????????

Guess emojis appear as question marks.
I LOVE. Chick-Fil A sandwichs

This is the second article you have written descriminating against Chik Fil A. People will make their own decisions and your stirring the pot as a blogger is showing. You may not like them, but market success or failure will ultimately decide its fate.

David Canepa doesn't speak for me so I'd appreciate it if he would focus on more pressing civic issues and leave food choices to individuals. Honestly, does a decision of what to eat have to be a moral choice? It's a damn sandwich. Previous post is right on...the market will decide if it succeeds or fails.

Yes, eating choices convey one's values. Everything does.
Choosing to use paper or plastic conveys one's values. Choosing to buy and electric car or use gasoline conveys one's values. Choosing to read to one's children at night vs. watch TV conveys one's values. Wearing sunsreen or buying a hat can even convey what you value the most.

Choosing to buy products from Target if they are made in China conveys one's values. AND . choosing to patron a food chain that is anti LBGTQ shows that you value a good sandwich over the LBGTQ community.

There is nothing wrong with anyone's values. I may choose to buy a hat over using sunscreen because I think it's better for the enviroment or I may choose to wear sunscreen in addition to my hat because I value the health of my skin. All choices are OK but we need to acknowelege that our choices reflect our values.

I personally will not patron any Chick Fi Lay because I don't believe in the way they support anti LBGTQ organizations. I wouldn't go over to someone's hosue who had Chick Fi Lay for the same reason.

I know my values and stand by them.

If your value treating your taste buds more than standing up for the LBGTQ community, then just say that. I wouldn't do it but I don't judge you for it. I just choose to spend my time with people who share my values.

"I just choose to spend my time with people who share my values."

Fair enough. I value diversity--which means endeavoring to spend time with a meaningful number of people who *don't* share my values. In my view, this is a far more profound moral question than whether the owners of a fast food restaurant I patronize share my position on every salient ethical and political issue. To live in a prosperous Western society such as ours is to make choices, every day, that reflect a certain degree of indifference to the plight of the less advantaged. Making a moral mountain over this molehill is curiously selective at best and hypocritical at worst.

Say Jota,  I agree with we all have a  "certain degree of indifference to the plight of the less advantaged'.   The question I bring up is to what degree?

One might say,  I am indifferent to the values of the places that I patron as long as inhumane and criminal acts are not being performed.

Another might say a l am indifferent to the values of the places that I patron as long as they don't leave a carbon footprint beyond X size.

I wrote my comment to suggest that MY personal values are ones that guide me to feel indifferent only if it's extremely difficult to live without. For example,  to live in Silicon Valley without a cell phone of any type, is to practically not fit in with society.  Even poor people today in SV have cell phones and if helping child in labor camps in China means abandoning a cell phone all together,  I admit that I am not willing to do that.

However,  to choose a different chicken sandwich over another to be sure that II don't support financial support companies that take these anti- LBGTQ stances, doesn't cause me to live well outside the norm in my community.  I can EASILY make that sacrifice, even if I love the sandwich and function like an average person in my community.

I have a dent in my car and I have chosen to leave it so that I can support a boy going to college. The200$ that it would take me to get fixed, is money that I can put in the basket at church (beyond what I normally give) if I can live with the dent.  My values have guided me to say that feeding the poor is more important than taking care of the dent.

I wouldn't ride a bicycle without a helmet to do it because that would be a big risk to myself and my community's public hospital should I be hit//harmed and treated for a head injury.

I understand that you think it's making a mountain out of a molehill but it's a symbolic act that COSTS NOTHING but denying your taste buds to do.  I for one, while not willing to do everything to any degree,  am willing to do this one and am disappointed in people that think it's unreasonable to deny oneself a chicken sandwich to support the LBGTQ community.

Never have nor will I ever eat the diseased chicken , passing as food, that is served by this intolerant, hateful company. But on the bright side, I know that as born agains they are destined for eternal damnation in the flames of hell ( and before everyone gets all excited--remember what these born agains tell you if you do not follow their cult)

There appear to be several people here who don't understand the distinction between an individual (CEO Cathy) and a company (Chick-fil-A) including in particular Mr. Canepa and possibly Ms. Kadvany, who used the word "quietly" as if the company has something to be ashamed of.

As far as I know the COMPANY has no anti-LGBTQ policies, and the main component of any company is its 5,000 or so employees.

So if you want to protest Chik-fil-A itself, you are hurting only the local people who won't get jobs here, because of something their CEO said. Is that really the effect you want to have?

And by the way Mr. Canepa suddenly stopped talking about Chik-fil-A around the time it was pointed out that his letter is a gross violation of Chik-Fil-A's first amendment right to free speech.

Ms Kadvany -- why did you not mention this aspect of the story?

Cat, of course it's honorable to make sacrifices for the sake of principle. And I don't fault you for doing so. My concern lies with the absolutist and sanctimonious tone of your initial post. (To wit: "[C]hoosing to patron a food chain that is anti LBGTQ shows that you value a good sandwich over the LBGTQ community.") This betrays a simplistic, binary view that leaves no room for good-faith disagreement and suggests that the only way to disagree with you is to be a morally compromised person. This is not a great look.

As awatkins says, the question for many of us isn't whether we stand with or against the LGBTQ community; it's whether we tie the troubling beliefs of a corporation's founder with the ethics of patronizing her/his business. I just don't see how tying the two makes sense. You're free to disagree.

So by all means, continue to act and sacrifice to support causes you believe in. But please refrain from condemning those of us who don't read deep moral significance into our choice of fast food.

awatkins, I'm with you on the broader point in your first comment. But note that there's no violation of First Amendment rights here. There has been no law passed that restricts any individual's right to share their beliefs. And the First Amendment, for what it's worth, doesn't bar the existence of consequences to sharing one's views--just the government's passing a law that prohibits the sharing in the first place.

Awatkins- I understand the difference. I just choose not to support a company run by a born again bigot.

Say Jota,

What do you mean by"the only way to disagree with you is to be a morally compromised person".

I'm open to learning from you here. Yes, I think that it is a binary view but in that moment of buying the Chick Fi Lay, they have made that choice. IN that moment. It doesn't mean that they don't care about the LBGTQ cause but at that moment, they care about it less than they do enjoying the sandwich. If that makes them feel morally compromised, that is the point.

There are times that I choose to upgrade my iphone knowing that children in labor camps in China made it. I feel badly about that choice but I don't pretend that I am not making it. I am. At that moment, I have justified to myself, as I did in this thread, that I need an i phone more than I am willing to stand against the labor camps of children in China.

The point of my comment is to get folks to think about how far they are willing to go and how much they can live with.

Everything that I am writing about comes from this book. I starting thinking along these lines when someone gave it to me.

Web Link

Say Jota �"
There is a free speech violation embedded in County Supervisor David Canepa's having sent a letter, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, to the CEO asking him not to open a branch in RC.

Chik Fil A is known to be a company that treats its staff well and has high standards with its customer satisfaction. Additionally, they have been known to open (sometimes on Sunday) to give free food to disaster victims and first responders, including those at the aftermath of the Gay bar shooting.

The company's policies are beyond reproach and they are not worthy of the criticism against the individual owner.

awatkins: I'm on your side about the restaurant and choosing to eat there. I ordered delivery from there this very morning, in fact, upon reading this post. But there is no first amendment violation in this case. The first amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that limit speech (and the 14th binds the states to those same prohibitions). There is no law here limiting speech; there's merely a local gov't official *asking* a corporation *to not open a store*. There is no law prohibiting Chick-Fil-A from opening the store, and there is no speech anyway, as opening a store is not "speech" (it's commerce).

I think the councilman is completely up a tree in advocating about something like this, and invoking the sway of his position as a gov't official to do so. I find it ridiculous. But it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

So Cult, just to be clear: you are going to punish the employees and the shareholders of the company, because of something the CEO in his personal capacity said. And his being a multimillionaire, how does doing something he will never notice nor care about, further your or anyone else's goals? Do you check on the social values of the CEOs of all the companies whose products or services you buy? What about the rest of the executives and the board of directors?

I think this action you are taking could fairly be called lazy virtue signaling. Bravo, you go gettem!

Cat, my point about being "morally compromised" was the natural reading of your initial statement regarding someone eating at Chick-fil-A caring more about their taste buds than the plight of LGBTQ people. But, like most moral questions, there's far more gray than black and white here.

Buying that sandwich helps pay the salary of the local workers who toil to prepare it. These are jobs created by the existence of a local Chick-fil-A branch and the significant demand that will require more such jobs than your average fast food joint. These are jobs where the employees are treated far better than their peers at similar establishments (along w/ Sundays off). So on the positive and direct side of the moral ledger, we have job creation and improved employee treatment in our very own community. On the negative side, we know that the founder--a devoutly Christian man who lives by other, far more ethical principles of his faith than LGBTQ hate (such as caring for those affected by natural disasters)--will benefit, in relative terms, far less and far more indirectly.

In my view, the ultimate moral effect of purchasing a meal at CFA is slightly positive or neutral at best. So it's my personal opinion that not eating there is more about signaling one's own virtue (to themselves and others) than actually effecting meaningful moral change. I don't doubt that you make a real difference in important ways in other aspects of your life--but refraining from buying a fast food sandwich doesn't strike me as one of them.

Say Jota �"

So your theory is that no amount of pressure, regardless of what kind or magnitude, applied by a government official to an individual because of something the individual said, is a violation of the free speech rights of the individual, as long as it does not involve passing a law? Really? You have to be the federal government or a state government and you have to pass a law in order to infringe an individuals rights to free speech? Counties can't do it no matter how hard they try? Police can't do it?

If that's true, how would you explain this lawsuit by individuals against the city of Birmingham, MI?

Web Link

It's simple, people: Imagine if a business owner told you to your face "I don't like you and your spouse and I don't believe you are a real family". Would you still want to spend money or support his business? Be honest.... I don't think you would.

It's simple, people: Imagine if a customer told you to your face "I don't like you and your spouse and I don't like your religion". Would you still want them to spend money or support your business? Be honest.... I don't think you would.

Awatkins- I guess you were against the bus boycotts in the 60s that helped end discrimination in the south. My choice not to eat there. I am not stopping you or anyone else from eating their chicken. Don't like it? Too bad.

Just the mention of Chick-Fil-A triggers the usual suspects. So sick of the SJW's that live to be offended. Don't go there. Nobody cares. They are going to do great because they have a great product. Looking forward to it.

[Post removed.]

Yes, awatkins. This gets at a fundamental misconception about free speech rights under the Constitution. Free speech rights aren't abridged by someone--even someone in the government--disagreeing with or criticizing your views. If Chick-fil-A were legally barred (by statute or other government regulation) form opening a store (and if opening a store were considered speech), then this could be a first amendment issue. But a councilperson advocating by persuasion and criticism alone doesn't rise to that level.

Say Jota �"
Thanks for repeating your argument and distorting mine, I'm still waiting for your explanation of the case I cited (or any of the thousands like it) wherein a city is accused od infringing individual's rights without passing a law or regulation.

I think chik fila is way overrated. Don't know why so many people will wait in lines and drive thru for thier food. Wonder if because of thier Christian values that people decide to go. Because food is nothing special

awatkins, no need to get antagonistic; I'm not trying to distort your argument, I promise. We're on the same side of the broader issue--we just disagree about why a councilman's silly opinion is problematic here. I think it's because it's not really his place to throw his weight around to influence an individual business' choices; you think it's an abrogation of Chick-fil-A's freedom of speech rights.

The case you cited was settled out of court and no judgment was rendered, so there's no decisive outcome and no legal precedent set. (Just b/c someone sued doesn't mean they won.) I still don't see why opening a restaurant is speech. And I don't understand why a gov't official telling a business that it's not welcome in his area (in his opinion) is a law/regulation limiting speech. Now if San Mateo County passes a ban on Chick-fil-A restaurants in the area, then it's a different story.

1st Amendment text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Thanks Say Jota for taking the time to give me food for thought. You've got me thinking...

I see your point about being slightly positive or neutral. Perhaps I'm just an idealist and thinking that we could open a restaurant that has all those good benefits AND doesn't support the hatred of LBGTQ. And I try to think that just because I can't make meaningful change, doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to do what's within my locus of control. Every bit matters, just like every vote counts.

That being said, in the absence of having a restaurant that helps create jobs and doesn't support anti- LBGTQ groups, if you think that buying a sandwich still has a net positive, I would consider purchasing there. If it's only net neutral however, I would refrain.

You made me think.

Yay!!

I love their food! if you don't like their views on issues don't go there , simple as that! I can't believe all the wasted energy on this subject, get a life

@YP

I actually believe there is value in having discourse on issues, especially when we can see right here the strong feelings on this. It helps us develop and evolve our own opinions.

No thought is needed in creating a post such as yours, and it offers zero value to the discussion. I believe the only time/energy wasted is that of your own.

I'm sure my woke neighbors' heads are exploding over this news. How dare you! I might just order one today. LOL

Chick-fil-A claims that it is no longer supporting bigoted charities. CNN News report: Web Link

Is this going to help or hurt their business?

Cat, your willingness to sit back and reflect speaks volumes about your character and intentions. I appreciate you being open to my point of view and for taking it seriously.

I agree that we should all hope for restaurants that treat employees well, donate to those suffering from natural disasters, AND refrain rom supporting anti-LGBTQ organizations. (Thankfully, it looks like Chick-fil-A has just announced its intention to become just that sort of company.)

SayJota �"
I'll try this one more time. Canepa has stated he would do everything in his power as County Supervisor to stop the Co. from opening in SM county. He did this in reaction to something the CEO *SAID*. Now we have a damaging government action in response to a private individual's speech, hence first amd. violation. Yes the violation happened ex post facto so go to wikipedia or a legal text and read about “chilling effect" in free speech.

I never said that moving to RC was speech. You made that up.

The point of citing the lawsuit was to show that by making it that far it disproves your assertion that the only entities that can violate 1st Amd. are states the feds and state governments. There are cases like that ALL THE TIME. One of the ways you went wrong is misunderstanding that the 1st Amd. applies to STATE ACTORS" which means ANY governmental entity. Look it up.

You will get nowhere in truly understanding free speech issues with a high-school level knowledge of just the amendment text. That's why there have been truck loads of books written on the subject.

I'm Done.

Awatkins- so is the same as cities refusing to allow the opening of marijuana dispensaries or selling vaping products? Is there a first amendment right to run a business?

Looks like the boycott has worked, with some help from Popeye's chicken sandwich and 1/7th of possible revenue not being realized(Sundays)
It seems there is no longer a good excuse for not going here, except for their food sucks and is one of the may reasons we a nation of obesity.

On CNN, the diseased chicken outlet will no longer donate to anti-LGBTQ organizations:
Web Link
Take note not to give money to the Salvation Army bell ringers this season-- they are one of the organizations that will no longer receive diseased chicken money (and before you blow a gasket, there are plenty of charitable organizations that do not discriminate). The second organization is more insidious-the FCA- fellowship of christian athletes. they are very active on college campuses as they try to indoctrinate young people into their cult.
Glad the boycott worked, but still will not buy food at their locations

awatkins, feel free to be done. I don't think you've read my posts very carefully, and I don't understand your anger. I've disagreed civilly the entire time but your language is increasingly aggressive for reasons I don't understand.

It appears the boycott did little/nothing to slow down their success as a business.

Chick-fil-a has been one of the fastest growing fast food restaurants (if not the fastest) in the country for many years, especially after the initial controversy, and they make far more sales per store than any of their competitors. They are now the 3rd largest fast food chain in the country (McDonalds and Starbucks 1 and 2).

Result of boycott: richer than ever.
Likely result after end of boycott: richer than ever.

The protesters got what they wanted, the chain will see a boost in customers, and the people who said these things should not matter are still of that mindset so now EVERYONE is happy.
Congrats for both sides coming together.

Unfortunately their food is still the type that will lead to an early death, but hey, its all about other things so eat up! Do it for 'merica. LOL

soooo how do I order this through DoorDash :)

Let's eat some chicken!

"when Cathy said that he believes in the "biblical definition of the family unit.""

I DON'T believe in Cathy's handle on the "bibical definition" of the family unit. (It's really more a Republican platform definition of a family unit, conflated with a biblical definition as part of the Republicans' Southern strategy to get Southern voters to always vote Republican as if the politicians are their God, no matter how far the party strays from its own actual "values".)

So: biblical family unit. Are we talking polygamy here? Marrying your brother's widow if he dies? (Which, by the way, was about social justice since in the day, the widow would have starved without any way to support herself -- it's not a rule to marry your brother's wife.)

Or are we talking New Testament since that defines Christianity -- oh yeah, Jesus said ZERO about homosexuality but he did tell people not to get divorced and also said love your neighbor as yourself and care for the least among us (didn't differentiate by sexual orientation) as if they are Jesus Himself. I'm just curious as to whether the guy contributed to any organizations that discriminate against divorced people? Doesn't the Old Testament say that you're not supposed to make money from selling food to the poor (maybe in the year of the Jubilee, can't remember now) -- regardless, I can't remember Chick Fila having an income test for their customers to maintain the CEO's Biblical values. Or giving their food away at cost to poor people according to the Bible.

That said, if the company has truly changed its policies -- even changed its perspective -- people should respect that, because otherwise what are they accomplishing the next time they put pressure on an organization?

Firstly, I believe the Bible tells us not to judge others but leave the judgment to God. We are told to love others, even those who hate us. We are told to turn the other cheek and to do good to those with whom we disagree. I think those Biblical principles are what matters.

Secondly, I would say that protesting and expecting a company CEO to change his personal views has nothing to do with company policy. A company policy is not the same as the owner's viewpoint.

Thirdly, look at it another way. What happens if another company appears to be doing something of which you approve and then a group start protesting that they change their method of operating just to please them. Would you still feel the same way if a company was "forced" to change its policies because of protests?

Free speech is a good thing. But if the speech is something to which the majority don't share the same opinion, it is still their right to say and do that which they adhere to, provided it is done respectfully, legally and correctly. Free speech works all ways. It is not just the majority opinions that are free. It is also free for those with different or minority viewpoints.

Think about the other side before making sweeping statements. How would you like protestors outside your front door telling you what they want you to do, what you should think or where you should donate your own personal money? You might not like being told to do things with which you don't agree. Boycott a company if you don't like the views of the CEO if you want to, but remember the CEO is not the ones who have to pass the protestors or face the nastiness as they go about their work. It is the people at the bottom rung of the ladder who are just doing their job the best way that they can who will be affected most.

Lastly, I would say to the food blogger, that introducing political issues into a blog about food is not a sensible thing to do. If you want to talk about the quality of the chicken that is fine. But otherwise, this blog seems more political than anything else to me.

The comments are what make it political, but actually, more religious than political. It's so sad that some christians think fighting _against_ the rights of others is a Christian act, but I'm glad Chic Fil A has seen the forgiving glow of our Lord's love and changed. The owner's place beside the Lord has become secure.

Since when does a company's values - whatever that means - have to represent the overwhelming majority of residents (and how does Canepa even know that - did he take a poll?) in order to do business in that community? As a government official, Canepa is ignorant to the fact that the U.S. Constitution was written to protect minority views against majority tyranny. You have no business telling a company what they can or cannot believe as a condition of operating a restaurant. If you don't like Chick Fil A, you don't have to eat there. But if you pass a new law, I have to comply. So which of the two is the real evil: the company that can't force me to do anything or the entity that can lock me up and take away my liberty and freedom?

To the above poster, same as cannabis dispensaries, right?

I pray for my fellow Christians who feel acting against someone is correct. I'm so glad CFA has joined hands with those who would NOT work against individuals rights.
Redemption and forgiveness belongs to Chic Fil A.
Thank you for walking with the Lord and following his teachings

I think Say Jota needs a job he's enthusiastic about.

Obviously, there's organization going on in this comment section. Nobody's fooling anybody who's been a part of this newspaper's community.

I like fried foods. I like people treating others equally so now I like Chic Fil Aaaaaaay :)

Thank you for doing the right thing!

"To the above poster, same as cannabis dispensaries, right?"

You bet, and I would also includes all other drugs, like heroin and cocaine, and brothels, casinos, vaping/smoking lounges, strip clubs, etc. - whatever consenting adults voluntarily choose to do. All of those businesses/activities that I just named, at their worst, are 1000X morally superior to a coercive county department at its best.

It's chicken:
Web Link

I love that free chicken kid! Very happy that the restaurant had a change of heart abut their donations. I support them though I hear some groups are up in arms about it.

Totally enthusiastic about my job, Riley. Not sure what invited the snide remark but I quite enjoy my work. Hope you do, too.

I love my work-local CFA. The kids working there are the BEST! Though I never supported the boycott, there were times when I was on the fence about where to eat, and opted for another place when I thought about the gay thing. It could be a tipping point some days so maybe that is supporting it, I don't know, don't care about that part.

Now I can say I like the company from the top down. I'm so proud of them for this step. It was the right thing to do. BRAVO!